Jump to content

Requiem

Testers
  • Content Count

    1117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1699 Excellent

About Requiem

  • Rank
    Founder

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    https://discord.gg/rPQCjch
  • Website URL
    http://www.youtube.com/requiembos

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

4420 profile views
  1. I would ride a jumpseat out to Seattle for it but I'm sure the missus would kill me haha Hopefully you can find an Il-2 flyer to join you!
  2. I know I and many of us appreciate the early look to see what's coming, so thanks for that. The relative movement was definitely easier to catch while watching. I'm interested to see this in motion myself to check it out without the video compression but it's looking promising in the close range
  3. I'm happy with the G modeling for the most part. It's been one if the best improvements to Il-2 in my opinion. The only tweak I would make is to improve the pilot's resistance when you apply a rapid G force onset and increase the time you can hold maximum sustained G rather than increase the max sustained G too much. This would result in the greying/blacking out to be less rapid than what it is currently, but allow you to make a mistake with enough time to back off. If you increase the pilot's performance to the point where every pilot is considered a Blue Angel you may as well have just left the initial system unchanged, so don't go too far in that direction please.
  4. None taken as this is a thread to throw things out for discussion. Focusing the field of view like that was just an idea that popped into my head as I was writing my post when evaluating how I spot contacts in RL and how that affects what is, or isn't, seen around me while focusing on a single airplane. I'm just glad to finally see an official avenue recognisng the issue so hopefully we get a good result from this discussion.
  5. @Han Realistic vs fun do not have to be mutually exclusive. A big reason pilots wouldn't see someone shooting at them while maintaining formation is that their formation spacing is too close. Being so close to a wingman makes it necessary for you to focus all your attention on him, therefore reducing your situational awareness by not being able to look around. In Il-2 the same thing happens if you fly close formation in a combat area as there are many instances of killing two airplanes in one pass as a result, but with the visibility how it is currently you can't always fly a regular combat spread formation because you'll lose sight of them even without them changing their heading/altitude during your regular scan for enemy aircraft. In general contacts need to get progressively much darker the further their distance away to enhance their contrast because the spotting against the sky and landscape is much harder than in RL. One other big problem to face with visibility is difficulty in simulating the depth of field (DOFi) we achieve when our eyes focus at a certain distance when we spot something, so when our eyes catch the relative movement of the target we can easily focus on it, making everything other than that range look slightly blurred (which may be why I like using the "blurred" landscape option). In RL if we were to focus on the landscape...then the landscape is sharp, but the aircraft would be slightly blurry yet still register as an object in our field of vision (FOV). In Il-2 we can try to focus on an aircraft when we see it but because it's on a 2D screen we can't truly focus and ignore the background because the screen dictates what we see, not what our eyes would see. This is something attributing to eye strain people are experiencing I think...our eyes are trying to focus on an object to separate it from it's background, but we can't because it's on displayed on a screen in RL where the distance to the object and background are exactly the same ie - The distance from your eye to the monitor, not to the object of focus. From another thread I wrote this about visibility: "Assuming high environmental visibility, which is what we have in the sim, we should be seeing fighter sized targets easily to 5nm (9km), but out to a max of around 7nm (13km). When I was learning to fly and while flight instructing I would not only see small general aviation airplanes at 5nm routinely, but regain the tally quickly after looking away. In the airliner I fly now I have no problems seeing planes like the CRJ, E175, B737, A320, etc at rear aspect etc out to 15-17nm (27-37km). A little further if they're turning and showing greater planform. C17, A380, etc can be seen even further still. Yes, of course they're bigger but I'm seeing them much further and wouldn't expect to see fighters out that far personally" We are flying while looking at monitors with limited pixel density compared to our eyes, so we will never get realism 1:1 like what we have in RL by using pure mathematical formulae for spotting and saying that because the math is right the spotting must be right . This means that a compromise needs to be made so we won't have 1:1 for realism in spotting, but something that gives the illusion of 1:1 instead without the need to "zoom" and change your FOV at all to spot targets. Now I would never expect something like what I'm showing below as I'm sure it's extremely difficult to do, but an interesting spotting enhancement could be that once your eye catches relative movement of an aircraft during your scan you can press a "focus" toggle button which would make the sky/ground blurry, but keep airplanes close by (within 5nm (9km)) sharpened to simulate focusing on a target at close range (cockpit would also stay unblurred obviously). It's subtle but it could be an effective option to improve spotting at close ranges when coupled with the other improvements to contrast and rendering. I made these as a quick example of what I mean. Original Focused
  6. No, sorry Royal I'm not familiar with Delanclip. Nadelbaum has you covered though for how to fix your centered view if it's messed up (same process as in RoF)
  7. This is merely a guess...but if you look outside of the cockpit and down a little on the right side there is a placard for 24V so I would assume there's a plugin for external power in that square spot.
  8. Once I see tracers I know the general area someone is and if I spot them I'll usually have to remain "padlocked" on them. If I look away to check six or a wingman it is weirdly difficult to get tally back. I'm not doubting the effectiveness of camoflage and I know people conceal themselves in snow or other terrain incredibly well. Those people hiding in a field are not moving though. An airplane is a moving object and it's movement which attracts our eyes when scanning, so with that mind it will be more difficult to spot an airplane whose movement relative to you is small (think directly head on or astern here) but it gets much easier the more perpendicular to your flightpath the bandit becomes because relative movement increases. I still would expect airplanes to fly past without seeing each other as no one spots every airplane in RL even with TCAS or ATC giving you the direction where to look. However, when considering that Il-2 has perfect environmental visibility (ie - sky is clear with no haze) then the likelihood of spotting aircraft is not representative of RL in my experience. Hopefully one day we can see improvements. There are plenty of RL pilots who fly Il-2 who the devs can call on if they desire input on the subject.
  9. I haven't been on there for a while but I do remember the alt vis being on so maybe it switched back since then
  10. If adjusting scaling, rendering, and contrast allows us to spot contacts without needing to zoom in everywhere or relying on bullet tracers to spot airplanes first then I'm all for that. Usually it's tracers that are a giveaway...tracers are like moths to a flame. Imagine if none of the airplanes in the sim had tracer loadouts and how that would affect your likelihood of finding enemy aircraft in some MP situations. The alternate visilibility is the nice thing about jumping into Berloga...yes, the contacts render too far away under alternate visilibility currently, but you can actually fly around and search using a regular scan technique at a normal field of view and see things. There's no need to zoom. Just look around. It's just unfortunate at the moment the scaling is off when using it as there is good potential there if it could be done right. If I could wave a magic wand to fix visibility in Il-2...we would be able to easily see fighter sized contacts to 5nm (9km), but then with increasing difficulty out to a max of 7nm (13km) depending on the planform (worst case is front or rear aspect, best case would be in a turn showing off the full wing). That's just for airplanes with wingspans of like 30ft. Get into aircraft with larger wingspans and they would be seen even further away no worries. If we truly want to reflect what spotting is like in RL then compromises need to be made to account for the fact we're playing a game on screens. Otherwise if we just believe that using data without accounting for computer hardware limitations is realistic then we'll have to be satisfied with flying around in our little 0.5nm-1nm bubble (1-2km) hoping we don't get bounced after methodically checking our six o'clock a few seconds earlier. I'm not saying I can't see airplanes further out in-game, because I can, but it's just so much more difficult in-game than it is in RL to spot something initially let alone being able to maintain that tally or regain it quickly after looking away. It can be frustrating when people fly around for 40 mins seeing essentially nothing, but then looking at Tacview or a track later and seeing how many airplanes there were buzzing around close by and yet none of them saw each other. It feels like the visibility issue take away the "combat" portion of things at times.
  11. Here are both videos on how to attack bombers if you haven't caught them. Cheers.
  12. After speaking with the app maker about these differences he's found a small error he needs to fix that would explain the difference, so thank you for sharing your results with the P-38. I spent a few hours yesterday getting performance numbers for eight airplanes to input into my EM diagrams which are now going into the bin...so while I'll have to redo them in a new version of the app at least I didn't do every airplane without knowing about the error. The 1.2 degree difference wasn't between our tests or any of my sustained turn tests, but the difference between what Tacview showed and the app showed during a quick test where I recorded a flight maintaining 10°/sec.
  13. I've been doing some testing of various airplanes recently, so I did the P-38 this morning and found max sustained turn rates in level turns of: 200 mph, clean - 17.8°/sec 190 mph, Maneuver flaps - 19.1°/sec 180 mph, Full flaps - 20.3°/sec For comparison vs the K-4 with DB engine (the DC engine is rare enough that it's not a priority to test for me): 300 km/hr (186mph) clean - 19.1°/sec For the G-14: 280 km/hr (186mph) clean - 20.2°/sec My tests aren't done with Tacview though. They're done with an app that uses the telemetry output from Il-2 while flying and when I did a quick check between the app and recording Tacview, Tacview showed an extra 1.2 degrees of turn rate compared to the app at the exact same time when I held the turn rate constant in the P-38. There's always some error with this stuff so unless we get pure data from the devs there will be some small differences between tests. I'm not an advocate of using full flaps in any airplane unless you're desperate and are in a 1C fight or something. Maybe there isn't enough drag modeled when using full flaps.
  14. If you can wait that will be fine for now as the new method uses an app for real time data which saves a TON of effort. The only place I've shared some of the numbers I have are on my Patreon atm as it's all WIP and subject to change as I refine the testing process (the pictures in the first post here are out of date). When the time comes for more widespread testing I'll make another thread, but that won't happen before I complete my next video on EM theory.
×
×
  • Create New...